Vortex Generators: Band-Aids or Magic?

Vortex generators have revolutionized the engine-out safety margins of twin-engine airplanes, and thousands of aircraft have been retrofitted with them over the last decade. But when AVweb's editor-in-chief recently had VGs installed on his Cessna T310R, he discovered that they also improve short-field performance and low-speed handling to an extent that is hard to believe until you experience it. Not just for twins anymore, VGs are rapidly gaining popularity as an effective STOL modification to single-engine airplanes from Piper Cubs to Beech Bonanzas. This in-depth pilot report reviews the history of VGs, who offers them for which aircraft, why they work so well, how they're installed, and what it's like to fly with them.

Related Articles

About the Author ...

Mike Busch is editor-in-chief of
AVweb, a member of the technical staff at Cessna Pilots Association, and in a
prior lifetime was a contributing editor for The Aviation Consumer and IFR
Magazine. A 6,000-hour commercial pilot and CFI with airplane, instrument and
multiengine ratings, Mike has been flying for 36 years and an aircraft owner
for 33. For the past 14 of those years, he's owned and flown a Cessna T310R
turbocharged twin, which he maintains himself. In his never-ending quest to
become a true renaissance man of aviation, Mike's on the verge of earning his
A&P mechanic certificate. Mike and his wife Jan reside on the central
coast of California in a semi-rural area where he can't get DSL or cable
TV.

Nobody's ever accused me of
being an early-adopter when it comes to aviation. I'm unabashedly skeptical about
aeronautical innovations until they've been proven in the field for years. When Mobil AV-1
was being touted as the greatest thing since sliced bread, I stuck with my Aeroshell W100.
When Cermicrome cylinders were all the rage, I stuck with nitrided steel jugs. (Both of
those proved to be mighty good decisions, too.) Heck, I'll probably be the last on my
block to replace my old panel-mount LORAN with a GPS; I'm still holding off until they get
WAAS figured out.

But the easily-visible fact that my T310R still wasn't
VG equipped was starting to get downright embarrassing. The lack of those little bumps on
my wings and vertical tail were starting to make me feel as conspicuous as I did a decade
ago when Detroit introduced high-mounted stop lights and my car seemed like the only one
on the road that didn't have one!

Even the most dyed-in-the-wool skeptics were unanimous that vortex generators are a
major advance in piston twin safety, lowering Vmc by ten knots or so to the point that it
is no longer a factor (because it is below stall speed). And as if that wasn't enough, I
learned that some of the VG kits offered substantial gross weight increases and
significantly slower approach and takeoff speeds.

It was time.

How It All Began

Vortex generator installation on a Beech Bonanza wing.

The use of vortex generators is nothing new. First used in England, VGs have been used
on transport jets for decades, and on bizjets since Bill Lear invented them. But
historically they were used as an aerodynamic "band-aid" to deal with localized
mach buffet problems at the high end of the airspeed envelope. MacDonnell Douglas
engineers would routinely scoff at the VGs on Boeing jets and brag, "see, we don't
need those things because we got our aerodynamics right in the first place."

The idea of using VGs to improve the low-speed performance of general aviation aircraft
came from an ex-Boeing engineer named Paul Robertson. Robertson first tried out his VG
idea on a Cessna 206, but while the VGs did lower the stall speed, it degraded the plane's
previously docile stall characteristics, so the project was shelved.

Robertson's next VG experiment involved a D-55 Baron that belonged to his
partner Mike Anderson. The Baron was famous for having a rather nasty stall
characteristics on one engine, but Robertson discovered that the VGs turned the airplane
into a pussycat and lowered Vmc a full ten knots to the point that it was below stall.

Convinced that VGs had great promise to make piston twins safer, Robertson started a
new company called Friday International (located in Friday Harbor, Washington)
together with partners Mike Anderson and Chuck White. In 1987, the company managed to
secure the first STC for a VG kit on the Beech Barons. They also put VGs on an A36 Bonanza
but never got far along enough with that project to get an STC.

Turbulence In The Industry

Beginning around 1990, the story of the VG kit business started sounding like a passage
from the Old Testament. Disagreements between the partners caused Robertson and White to
leave Friday International and, together with their engineering test pilot Bob Desroche,
form a new firm called Micro Aerodynamics in
Anacortes, Washington. This company went on to obtain STC approval for VG kits for
numerous piston twins including the Baron 55 and 58, Twin Bonanza, Cessna 310-320-340 and
402-414-421, and Piper Aztec. More recently, the company has obtained STCs for VG kits for
most of the rag-wing strut-braced Piper singles (Cub, Super Cub, Super Cruiser, Pacer
andTri-Pacer) and the Maules.

Meantime, Friday International changed its name to VG Systems and obtained
additional STCs for VG kits on the Cessna 340 and 421B. VG Systems was acquired in 1993 by
Beryl D'Shannon (of Bonanza mod fame),
who moved the operation to Minnesota and completed the work started by Friday
International to obtain STCs for VG kits for the Bonanza A36 and F33.

RAM Aircraft in Waco also decided to
get into the act about the same time. Many customers were asking RAM to install Micro
Aerodynamics VG kits on their Cessna 300 and 400 series twins while the airplanes were in
Waco being fitted with RAM engines. Concluding it would be better to keep the money
in-house, RAM obtained its own VG STCs for the Cessna 340/340A, 402C, 414/414A, 421C and
425.

About the same time, back at Anacortes, both Paul Robertson and Bob Desroche decided to
depart Micro Aerodynamics to start new aircraft modification companies. Robertson founded Aeronautical
Testing Services and proceeded to obtain VG kit STCs for most of the Cessna 300/400
twins and the Piper Seneca, and also for the Cessna 120/140, 180/185 and deHavilland
Beaver. Meanwhile, Desroche formed Boundary
Layer Research and obtained VG STCs for the Beech Duke, the Piper Navajo,
Chieftain and Panther, and also for the Super Cub. Ultimately, in 1997, Robertson and
Desroche decided to combine their VG businesses and Boundary Layer Research acquired
rights to all of Robertson's VG STCs.

In case you lost count a few paragraphs back (entirely understandable!), this leaves
four surviving players in the VG kit business: Beryl
D'Shannon, Boundary Layer Research,
Micro Aerodynamics, andRAM Aircraft. D'Shannon offers VGs only for
Barons and Bonanzas, RAM offers kits only for Cessna twins, while both BLR and MA offer
STC'd kits for a wide variety of aircraft.

VG Kits: Who Offers What?

The table below summarizes the various aircraft models for which each of these firms
offers VG kits:

Which VG Kit to Pick?

You might think that one VG kit is pretty much like another, but that often turns out
not to be the case. Of course, if you're flying an Aztec, Bonanza, Duke, Maule or Cessna
120/140/180/185, you don't have any choice because there's only one STC available for your
airplane (as you can see in the table above). But if you're flying a Baron, twin Cessna or
Super Cub, you have two or three choices and some comparison shopping is in order.

When it came time for me to decide which company to select to put bumps on my T310R,
the choice turned out to be pretty easy. Three of the four VG firms offer STC'd kits for
twin Cessnas. RAM's VG kit price ($2,150) is the lowest of the three companies, but none
of RAM's VG kits offer any gross weight increase — undoubtedly because RAM's principal
business is selling increased horsepower engines, and a big selling point of those engines
is that they offer more useful load. I also discovered that while RAM offers VGs for most
of the twin Cessnas, they don't presently have an STC for the 310 or T310. So I crossed
RAM off my list.

That left Boundary Layer Research
and Micro Aerodynamics, both of whom offer VG kits
for the T310R (and for most other twin Cessna models as well). Both kits looked good, and
both offered comparable gross weight increases. But BLR's was priced $500 less ($2,450 vs.
$2,950) and offered slightly better numbers than MA's. The clincher was that the BLR STC
increased the Zero Fuel Weight of the T310R by 385 pounds (effectively eliminating ZFW)
while the MA STC offered no ZFW increase. I concluded that Boundary Layer Research's STC for the
T310R was both less expensive and better (at least on paper), and I decided to go that
route.

Rather than order the kit and install it myself, I decided to fly the airplane up to
Everett, Washington, and have BLR do the installation. Although the VG installation is
simple enough (one might even go so far as to call it idiot-proof) and can be easily done
in one day, going up to Everett would give me the chance to learn how these little bumps
do their aerodynamic magic, and to do a little flying with the master, BLR president
Bob Desroche, who undoubtedly has more test-pilot
time certifying VGs on light twins than any man on earth.

I'd also been looking for an excuse to fly up to Everett's Paine Field (PAE) because
that's where Boeing builds its widebodies (747, 767,
777) and I've long wanted to take a tour of that facility. So I made an appointment with
BLR for the first week in August (while everyone else was off at Oshkosh) and had a
glorious flight from SMX to PAE in an easy four hours.

BLR Rolls Out The Welcome Mat

Monday morning at 0800, I taxied the airplane to Hangar C-75 where Boundary Layer Research makes its home.
I was greeted by BLR's office manager Jean Wieser and introduced to BLR founder and
president Bob Desroche. Bob in turn introduced me
to Jay Falatko, BLR's resident FAA-Designated Engineering Representative (DER) and a
former Boeing aerodynamicist, and to Dale Lundgren who would be assisting Jay with the
installation of my VG kit.

Jean and Jay apply wing template
using a taut string.

BLR's spotless hangar contained Bob's Beech Duke which was in the process of being
fitted with prototypes of BLR's new wet wingtips (aux tanks), and a Super Cub belonging to
Bob's wife Monika that bristled with an eye-catching menagerie of VGs and body strakes.
(Monika is an accomplished pilot and vice-president of BLR.) Bob and Jay pulled Monika's
Super Cub out of the hangar and pushed in my Cessna 310. Within minutes, Jay, Dale and
Jean were busily at work on my VG installation.

Installing The VG Kit

My VG kit included about 90 one-inch-long vortex generator tabs machined from a
tee-shaped aluminum extrusion and prepainted to match the airplane's primary paint color
— white Imron in my case. VGs located over trim stripes may be painted with touch up
paint after installation, if desired, although the five-color paint scheme on my 310 is so
complex that I'll probably just leave my VGs white.

Positioning the VGs correctly is important, but the kit makes that easy by providing a
complete set of peel-and-stick templates with little rectangular cutouts where each VG is
to go. In many cases, such as the vertical stabilizer and stub wings on my 310, the
templates are positioned along a nearby skin lap. In the case of the outboard wing section
of the 310, no convenient skin lap exists so a string is pulled taut between two reference
points and the template is aligned with the string.

Once the templates are in position, it's simply a matter of roughening the paint at
each VG location with a Scotchbrite pad (or a chisel in the case of the 310's wing-walk
area), and then gluing the VG tab in place using the provided two-part adhesive (Loctite
330).

Most of the twin kits also come with a pair of nacelle strakes that act like large VGs
for the wing-to-nacelle interface. Another peel-and-stick template is used to locate
mounting holes that are drilled in the sides of the nacelles. The strakes are then simply
bolted in place.

Nacelle strakes bolt on .

The BLR kit also comes with a re-marked dial face for the airspeed indicator, and
installing that turned out to be the only difficult part of the job. Unfortunately, my
airplane came equipped with a "true airspeed" indicator that has a long
non-detachable capillary tube connecting the instrument to an air temperature probe on the
belly of the aircraft, and it's almost impossible to remove this instrument from the
aircraft without destroying the capillary tube. (I'd love to get my hands on the yo-yo who
came up with that design!) So a technician from the local instrument shop had to come over
to open up the instrument in the aircraft, install the new dial, and recheck the
instrument calibration. That turned out to be a two-hour job.

How VGs Work

With the installation well underway, I asked Bob Desroche and Jay Falatko if they could
explain to me the theory behind how vortex generators reduce stall speeds and Vmc. What
ensued was a cram course in Aerodynamics 101 which I found illuminating and fascinating.

VGs are boundary layer control devices, so it isn't surprising that to
understand how they work you first need to know something about the boundary layer. I'd
certainly heard the term before, but never really understood its significance. Bob and Jay
were glad to fill me in, and here's what I learned.

When an airplane is in flight, we usually think in terms of air passing over the top of
the wing at the airspeed of the aircraft. But it turns out that the viscosity of the air
and the friction of the wing surface cause the air molecules in contact with the wing to
adhere to its surface and therefore have zero velocity. Air molecules slightly farther
away from the wing surface will be slowed due to friction with the zero-velocity molecules
but won't be completely stopped. As we move still farther away from the wing surface, the
air molecules will be slowed less and less, until at some distance from the surface a
point is reached where the air molecules are not slowed at all. The layer of air from
the surface of the wing to the point where there is no measurable slowing of the air is
known as the boundary layer.

Boundary layer changes from laminar to turbulent flow as it moves aft
along the wing.

Laminar vs turbulent.

Near the leading edge of the wing, the boundary layer is very thin, and the air
molecules in it move smoothly and parallel to the wing surface. This is known as laminar
flow. But as the airflow progresses aft from the leading edge, the boundary layer
becomes progressively thicker and more unstable, and transitions to turbulent flow
in which intermixing of faster and slower air molecules starts to take place. (Another
easily-seen example of laminar and turbulent flow can be seen by watching the smoke rise
from a lighted cigarette in a draft-free room.)

It turns out that laminar flow is a good-news/bad-news situation. The good news is that
laminar flow provides greatly reduced drag compared to turbulent flow. The bad news is
that laminar flow permits the boundary layer to separate easily from the wing surface at
high angles of attack. That's why so-called "laminar flow airfoils" (which are
designed to move the transition to turbulent flow further aft) tend to provide low drag at
cruise but nasty stall characteristics.

Turbulent flow in the boundary layer produces more drag, but is much more resistant to
separation (and therefore to stalling). However, even in areas of turbulent flow, there
tends to be a thin sub-layer of laminar flow in the immediate vicinity of the wing surface
which becomes increasingly slow-moving and stagnant toward the trailing edge of the wing.
It is this "aerodynamically dead" sub-layer that allows airflow to separate and
the wing to stall.

By energizing the boundary layer, VGs allow the airfoil to operate
at higher angles-of-attack without airflow separation.(Copyright Micro AeroDynamics)

If we could find a way to energize this sublayer, flow separation would be supressed
and the onset of stall delayed. This is precisely what vortex generators do. Each VG
creates a pencil-thin tornado-like cone of swirling air that stimulates and organizes the
turbulent flow of the boundary layer on the aft portion of the wing. The swirl of the
vortices pull fast-moving air down through the boundary layer into close proximity to the
wing surface, energizing the previously-dead air there. The result is a wing that can fly
at significantly higher angles of attack before the onset of boundary layer separation,
and can therefore achieve a significantly higher maximum lift coefficient.

When mounted on the wings, VGs reduce stall speed and increase climb capability. When
mounted on the vertical tail, they increase rudder effectiveness and lower Vmc.

Gross Weight Increases

The performance improvements resulting from the VG installation on my T310R are shown
below:

Original

With VGs

Difference

Ramp Weight

5535

5720

+185

Gross Takeoff Weight

5500

5684

+184

Zero Fuel Weight

5015

5400

+385

Landing Weight

5400

5400

No Change

Minimum Control (Vmc)

80

70

-10

Stall, Clean (Vs)

79

75

-4

Stall, Dirty (Vso)

72

69

-3

Liftoff Speed (Vlof)

85

75

-10

Approach Speed (Vref)

94

87

-7

Performance specifications for Cessna T310R,
before and after BLR VG kit. (Weights shown in pounds, speeds shown in knots.)

While the numbers mostly speak for themselves, a few explanations are probably in
order.

The gross weight increase offered by the VG STC is a direct result of the reduction in
stall speed. Under the FARs, light twins are required to have an engine-out rate-of-climb
(in feet/minute) equal to .027 times the square of Vso (in knots). If you lower Vso by a
few knots, the required single-engine ROC goes down. At the same time, the VGs actually
increase single-engine ROC by increasing the maximum lift coefficient of the wings at high
angles-of-attack. Thus, the aircraft now has more single-engine climb performance than the
regs require. The solution: increase the gross weight!

Landing weight is a different story. It has structural implications, not just
aerodynamic ones. For an STC to obtain a landing weight increase would involve a landing
gear beef-up and a series of very costly "drop tests" to prove that the aircraft
could handle the additional weight without structural damage. BLR actually did this for
the Piper Chieftain, but it required strut modifications and new torque links, and was
quite expensive. It's therefore understandable why none of the twin Cessna VG STCs offer a
landing weight increase.

So if you take off at the new higher maximum takeoff weight, better plan on flying far
enough to burn of a few hundred pounds of fuel…or land gently and don't tell anyone!

Of course, there's no law that says you must use the gross weight increase.
Another huge benefit of VGs on twins is that if the airplane is flown at its original
(pre-increase) max takeoff weight, the VGs provide a big improvement in engine-out climb
performance — so much so that it is often possible (if the density altitude isn't too
high) to actually FLY a VG-equipped light twin when an engine fails shortly after
takeoff, rather than automatically having to throttle back and put the airplane down
off-airport. Naturally, if you load the airplane up to its increased maximum takeoff
weight, single-engine climb will be just as anemic as it was before...although with the
VGs you still have a much better chance of keeping the airplane under control.

Zero fuel weight only comes into play when you want to carry a maximum payload for a
short distance. For example, on a stock T310R with a 3900 pound empty weight, it says that
of the 1600 lbs of useful load, no more than 1115 lbs may be passengers and cargo; the
rest must be fuel. By increasing the ZFW to 5400 lbs (same as landing weight), the VG kit
effectively makes ZFW disappear, because if you loaded the aircraft to ZFW you'd have to
land on fumes (or overweight)!

Reduced Airspeeds: Vso, Vmc, Vref, Vlof

My re-marked airspeed dial.
Vmc is now below Vs.

The most significant airspeed change resulting from the VG installation is the virtual
elimination of Vmc. Technically, Vmc still exists, but at 70 knots loss of control occurs
at a lower airspeed than the airplane will fly unless it's extraordinarily light.

Bob Desroche told me a funny story from his early VG days with Paul Robertson when they
were getting the original Cessna 340 STC. Since Vmc is predicated on failure of the
critical (left) engine, Robertson originally applied VGs only to the left side of the
340's vertical stabilizer. Les Berven of the Seattle FSDO did those original certification
flights, and after numerous left engine cuts, he was bubbling over about the reduction of
Vmc. Then Les tried something totally unexpected: he cut the right engine, and discovered
(to everyone's astonishment) that Vmc occurred at a higher airspeed…the right engine
had become critical! Needless to say, Robertson quickly added VGs to the right side of the
vertical tail and re-flew the tests!

VGs are applied to both sides of the vertical tail!

While the reduction in Vmc gets all the glory, the 10-knot reduction in liftoff speed
and 7-knot reduction in approach speed makes a big difference in everyday flying. Twin
Cessnas are not especially good short-field airplanes, so these improvements are
especially welcome.

If you've been paying close attention, you might have noticed an apparent discrepancy
in the airspeed figures in Table 2. How can approach speed (Vref) be reduced by 7 knots
when the dirty stall speed (Vso) has been reduced by only 3 knots? After all, Vref is by
definition 1.3 times Vso. I had the same question, and the answer is straightforward: the
published Vso is certified at maximum takeoff weight (5684 lbs with the VGs), while Vref
is based on maximum landing weight (5400 lbs) at which Vso is lower. Naturally, at lighter
weights, approach speeds should be even less than the published 87 knot Vref.

So What's the Downside of VGs?

Okay, I thought, this all makes sense. But I still had the feeling that there must be
some downside. After all, my daddy always taught me that there's no such thing as a free
lunch. For instance, those 90 VGs stick up into the airflow and must produce some drag,
right? Won't that slow the airplane down at cruise?

BLR founder, president and chief test pilot Bob Desroche in a typical pose:
on the phone with a customer.

Bob Desroche explained that while the VGs do
produce some drag, they also reduce drag by reducing the thickness of the boundary layer
on the aft portion of the wing. The net result is about a "push" with no
measurable degradation in cruise speed.

Here's where proper placement of VGs is critical, Jay chimed in. If they're placed too
far forward, they'll hasten the transition from laminar to turbulent flow and therefore
increase drag. On the other hand, if they're placed too far aft, their effectiveness will
be compromised. The trick is to mount the VGs right at the boundary layer's transition
zone from laminar to turbulent flow.

How about icing, I asked? Won't the VGs pick up ice?

Not unless they're tall enough to poke up through the boundary layer, Bob replied.
That's one reason why the VGs are sized to a height of about 80% of the boundary layer
thickness. The VGs have been tested extensively in icing conditions during FAA
certification, and do not pick up ice except possibly when flying in freezing rain or
supercooled drizzle drops — conditions in which no portion of the airframe is completely
immune from icing.

Another question that has come up frequently is whether the addition of vortex
generators has an adverse effect on Design Maneuvering Speed (Va). Since the VG kit
reduces stall speeds, it would seem to follow that Va should also be reduced. Looking
through the POH supplement that accompanied my new VG kit, I did not see anything about an
amended Va, and I asked Bob why. Bob said it was a good question, and that there were
really two quite distinct answers: a regulatory answer and an aerodynamic answer.

From a certification standpoint, he explained, there is no requirement for the
published Va speed to be revised downward after the installation of a VG kit. The
regulation that requires the publication of Va for Part 23 aircraft (specifically, FAR
23.335 "Design Airspeeds") states in part "...Va may not be less than
Vs*SQRT(n)..." where Vs is the flaps-up stall speed at max gross weight and n is the
design limit load factor (typically 3.8 G's for a Normal Category aircraft). Thus, while
the reduced Vs provided for by VGs would permit Va to be reduced accordingly, the FARs do
not require such a reduction and BLR has chosen instead to substantiate the
aircraft structure to the originally published Va.

From an aerodynamic standpoint, Bob explained that Va is a speed that is poorly
understood by many pilots. Most of have been taught to use Va as a turbulence penetration
speed. But Va is not a manufacturer-recommended turbulence penetration speed, and
in fact there is no requirement that a turbulence penetration speed be published for Part
23 aircraft. (The situation is different for Part 25 aircraft like bizjets.) Unless you
plan to do snap rolls or other abrupt-control-deflection maneuvers, Va is a figure that
has little relevance to everyday flying.

Va is a purely theoretical figure that represents the maximum speed at which
abrupt control deflection will not stress the aircraft beyond its designed load limit. But
Va is not a speed determined from flight test, is not verified during FAA certification,
and is never required to be demonstrated by the manufacturer. Bob pointed out that if you
attempted to verify Va by intentionally stalling the aircraft at Va at the design load
limit of the airframe, you'd have to enter the maneuver at an airspeed significantly
higher than Va, then perform an abrupt pull-up or accelerated stall that would
produce load-limit G-forces and reduce the airspeed to Va precisely at the point where the
airplane stalled.

Va as published in the POH is a computed figure based on maximum aircraft weight. At
lower weights, Vs is lower and therefore Va is also lower. The aerodynamic effect of VGs
on manuvering speed is substantially identical to the effect of flying at less than
maximum weight.

Why Are VG Kits So Pricey?

While I had Bob's ear, I figured I might as well go for broke and ask him the $2,500
question: why do VG kits cost so much when the materials cost is clearly not very great?
Of course, I already knew the answer — it costs a lot to get the FAA to certify these
things — but Bob gave me some details that helped put things into true perspective.

He said that it can easily cost between $250,000 and $500,000 to get a VG kit
certified. Why so much? In essence, the FAA requires that almost all of the airplane's
original flight testing be repeated. For instance, for twins that were certificated for
known-icing (i.e., most of them), the icing tests have to be reflown (which means finding
sufficiently bad natural icing condition, flying behind a spray plane, or gluing styrofoam
"shapes" to the unbooted areas of the aircraft to simulate ice). For singles,
the spin tests have to be reflown (which means fitting the aircraft with a spin chute and
water ballast).

To make matters worse, the market for most of these costly-to-get STCs is depressingly
small. BLR's first VG STC was for the Beech Duke, of which only about 500 are flying. You
might think the situation would be a lot better with more popular models like the Cessna
310, but you'd be wrong. Separate STCs (and flight tests) are required for the "tuna
tank" models, the narrow-chord aileron models, wide-chord aileron models, the
long-nose R-model, and the turbocharged models. So the market for each of those STCs is
still pretty small. To make matters worse, the popular models like Barons and Twin Cessnas
have two or three companies competing for the limited market.

It's a tough business. Work the numbers. I think I'll stick to writing.

Enough Talk...Lets Go Flying!

With the VGs installed, the airspeed dial changed, and the logbooks and 337 forms
signed, it was time to go flying. Bob likes to go up with new VG customers for 45 minutes
or so to give them a checkout in their new-and-improved airplane before turning them
loose. It didn't take long for me to see why.

We taxied out to PAE's 9000-foot main runway, did our runup, and Bob briefed me for the
takeoff. "I want you to rotate at 75 knots — the new Vmc plus five — and climb to
pattern altitude at 85 knots…no faster." Bob warned me that this would feel at
first like an unnatural act.

He was right…it took all the faith and backpressure I could muster, and the
airplane (with three people aboard) broke ground early and climbed at an awesome deck
angle with the VSI nailed at 2,000 FPM. Thirty seconds later, we were at pattern altitude
and hadn't even crossed the departure end of the runway yet.

Bob directed me to a practice area over Puget Sound and had me fly a series of steep
turns, slow flight exercises, and stalls. I found the airplane rock solid at indicated
airspeeds so low that they'd have freaked me out before. We flew a series of low-speed
maneuvers with the stall warning horn blaring continuously, yet roll and pitch control
remained crisp and responsive.

It doesn't look very different,
but it flies like a new wing!

Then we did a series of stalls, with and without power, clean and dirty, level and
turning. It was really interesting: as the airplane eventually approached a stall (with
indicated airspeeds down in the 60s), it would start buffeting like a bucking bronco, yet
with no loss of altitude. Bob explained that this was the airflow separating over the stub
wings (between the fuselage and nacelles), but that the nacelle strakes created a large
vortex that acts like a stall fence and prevents the stall from propagating outboard of
the nacelles. All I know is that even with the stall warning horn disconeected and the
airspeed indicator covered up, you'd still have to be comatose to get the airplane into an
unintentional stall.

We were running out of time, so we decided to skip the Vmc demonstration and head back
to PAE for a couple of landings. I made my approaches at 85 knots indicated (7 knots
slower than the 92 Vref I was accustomed to using) and found that I was still arriving at
the flare with too much energy and floating a bit much. We agreed I would have to spend
some time on my own nibbling at the edge of the envelope to determine what short-field
approach speed would work best.

Creature of Habit

During the weeks following the VG installation, I made a point of trying ever slower
over-the-fence speeds on landing to get a feel for the new slow-speed characteristics of
the airplane. I found this surprisingly unnerving — after a decade of landing this
airplane with indicated airspeeds in the low 90s (not to mention some rather
"firm" touchdowns when I let the airspeed decay into the high 80s), it took a
fair amount of courage to fly a final approach at speeds in the low 80s and high 70s.
Despite the numbers in the POH supplement that came with BLR's VG kit, and despite my
all-to-short checkout in Everett, it just felt wrong flying the airplane that slow. My
head kept telling me that it was okay, but my gut kept saying "are you sure your hull
insurance is paid up?"

As a CFI, I know that this is a common problem with pilots who add STOL kits to their
airplanes. The STOL kit doesn't improve the airplane's short-field performance unless the
pilot can teach himself to fly slower approaches. That often takes a surprising amount of
time and self-discipline, because we're all creatures of habit to whom change doesn't come
easy.

After flying a number of approaches "by the book" at various weights, I found
that I invariably had more than enough speed at the flare and would float more than I
really wanted. On a couple of occasions, I'd do a full-dirty power-off stall just prior to
landing to establish what Vso actually was at my landing weight, then would multiply that
IAS by 1.3 and use it for my landing Vref speed. What I discovered was that actual Vso was
invariably considerably lower than the book figure, and the same held true of landing
speeds. I called Bob Desroche and asked him about this. Bob explained that the book
figures that BLR provides are extremely conservative, and are based on worst-case
conditions (like full-forward CG) that are seldom encountered in actual flight.

In any event, it's now obvious to me that it's going to take me awhile longer
before I feel really comfortable flying my VG-equipped airplane as slow as it really
should be flown. At the same time, I already have vastly greater confidence in my ability
to operate the T310R out of short fields than I did before.

VG Kits for Singles

Before leaving Everett for the flight home, I asked Bob what new projects he saw coming
up for BLR, he told me that the company was focusing increasingly on VG kits for
single-engine airplanes. While the VG market for twins has become quite mature over the
past decade, the surface has just barely been scratched when it comes to singles.

For instance, BLR secured an STC to install VGs on the Cessna 180 and 185 Skywagons,
and the results were quite impressive. For the Cessna 180, Vso was reduced by 8-10 knots
(depending on CG), and low-speed handling was significantly improved.

Bob thinks that similar results could be achieved on the Cessna 182, and expects that
BLR will start working on the STC for the Skylane in a few months. At this point, Bob is
on the lookout for a few 182 owners who'd be willing to make their airplanes available for
VG certification work. (He'll need both straight-tail and swept-tail airplanes, with and
without leading-edge cuffs.) If you're a 182 owner and think you might be interested, drop
Bob Desroche an e-note at bdesroche@avweb.com.

BLR also has obtained approval for VG kits for a variety of other single-engine
aircraft, including the Cessna 120/140, the Piper Super Cub and Super Cruiser, the
deHavilland Beaver, and a bunch of ag-planes. I predict this is only the beginning...after
seeing first-hand what VGs did for the low-speed handling and short-field performance of
my machine, I can see VG kits becoming the STOL modification of choice on all sorts of
airplanes.

Editor's Note:

Charles White, president of Micro Aerodynamics, informed us of several corrections to this article. His note is published in our AVmail for June 12, 2003.

Kevin Lane-Cummings
Features and AVmail Editor

AVweb Insider

FEATURED VIDEO

Pilot's Flightbag

Question of the Week

Picture of the Week

We say it every time we get a batch of photos of airplanes sitting on the ground: airplanes were meant to fly. Having said that, there are some nice ramp pix here but even though it's low resolution (we like 1-3 meg files) the Stearman and smoke was the best of the batch this week. Rod Hoctor contributed the winner.

Survey

Overhauling an engine is a big investment, with downtime, reliability, and confidence hanging in the balance. The editors at Aviation Consumer magazine want to know about your engine overhaul experience and the experience you had dealing with the shop. We'd appreciate you taking a couple of minutes to answer these questions. Take the survey here: http://engineshopsurvey2017.questionpro.com